Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Cameron must confront the Euro-Beast

When national newspapers refer to the Euro-beast, one wonders whether (1) they’ve been reading too much of His Grace; (2) they’ve received some prophetic insight from the Lord to proclaim to the British people at this time; or (3) they’re mad.

The Daily Mail has named the Euro-beast ‘Merkozy’ – a chimera of Germany and France. This is the essence of the spirit of Charlemagne.

Both Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy would like a new EU treaty, which must be agreed by all 27 member states. With or without a referendum (to which His Grace will return), this means that the UK will get a say in the negotiated outcome, and that say includes the power of veto.

The Prime Minister might have hoped that the Euro-17 would come to some informal arrangement among themselves for fiscal union, without anything as inconvenient as a whole new treaty. But Charlemagne-Merkozy requires something binding (Merk being more insistent than Ozy). A mere summit in Brussels cannot achieve that objective.

David Cameron is about to be confronted by ‘Europe’, and he needs to tread very carefully indeed: the omnipotent Euro-beast has been responsible for the downfall of more than a few of his predecessors, and is presently stamping upon the foreheads of the peoples of Europe the mark of austerity. Neither the Greeks nor Italians may buy or sell without his authorisation: along with Ireland, they have been sucked into the post-democratic era in which elections (when they happen) are nothing but a facade.

The problem is that the EU urgently needs treaty amendments to deal with a very present crisis (and crisis it is). But that requires an IGC (not simply some informal Franco-German summit, or even something informal for the euro-bloc or the entire EU membership). There are those who believe this represents an historic opportunity for the UK to effect the subsidiarity provisions of Maastricht and demand the repatriation of various competences now exercised at a supranational level under QMV.

And yet for HM Government to attempt to use this crisis to renegotiate its ‘relationship’ with the EU will appear petty and awfully small-minded. It’s a little like the merry band of musicians on the deck of Titanic walking up to Captain Smith as his ship was going down, to demand better working conditions. If he doesn’t agree, they’ll simply refuse to play. A crisis is a crisis: as the euro sinks, the Captain may well respond with a polite reminder that the icy waters will consume the musicians, too.

Let us be clear about this: the EU is at a crossroads. If the euro-bloc does not form a fiscal union, the euro will cease to be. A single currency requires not only a single bank, but a single government. One cannot render unto Caesar that which belongs to sundry ethnarcs without first ensuring the compliance of the vassal states. Caesar must be suzerain.

Which brings us to the thorny issue of a referendum.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that, despite his ‘Referendum Lock’, there will be no referendum because a new treaty for the eurozone involves no further transfer of sovereign powers from London to Brussels.

There are those who are of the opinion that this is ‘legally correct’: any new treaty would be a matter only for the euro-17. But this is disingenuous. A new treaty would effectively create a United States of Europe – an inner core (the euro-bloc) all subject to a single economic governance (=government), with the authority to tax and spend irrespective of the democratically-elected ethnarcs. At the moment, the UK is an equal participant in a one-size-fits-all union. A treaty heralding fiscal union for the few would fundamentally change that status: the UK is shunted to the outer tier; forced into the slow lane; expelled to the periphery; left behind; missing the boat, etc., etc. In short, the UK could no longer be ‘at the heart of Europe’, where successive governments have insisted we should be.

Many, of course, will rejoice at that: the notion that Britain needs to be ‘at the heart of Europe’ is historical nonsense. But no-one can pretend that a shift to a two-speed Europe does not represent a fundamental change in policy. The ‘heart of Europe’ is securely occupied by Germany and France. It is now for David Cameron to ‘fight Britain’s corner’, to ‘exert more influence’ and ‘punch above her weight’. And he can only achieve his professed Euro-sceptic objective by threatening the Euro-beast with a referendum of the British people.

Succeed there, Prime Minister, and your place in the pantheon of Conservative greats is assured. Fail, and you will go down in history as another weak, hypocritical, duplicitous, mendacious traitor.

Dave defers to Merkel and Sarkozy, a fatal weakness. At the risk of a Godwin's Law infringement the following has to be said. Prior to the Munich Crisis in 1938, Neville Chamberlain was the dominant personality and the commanding intellect in the House of Commons, as Dave is today. Incredible as that may seem.

When Chamberlain went in to bat for Britain against Adolf Hitler he was completely out-classed and his career never recovered. Dave suffers from the same breeding and social constraints as Chamberlain. While he may be a complete shit with people of his own class and with the lower orders, Dave's self assurance evaporates with foreigners. His default reaction is to smile and speak slowly, clearly and rather loudly in English. This puts Dave at a considerable disadvantage when dealing with somebody as intelligent and unscrupulous as Sarkozy, a brilliant flatterer. Merkel is a completely different kettle of fish, and importantly, she is of course, a woman. Again, Dave is disadvantaged for familiar reasons. A highly intelligent and manipulative woman like Merkel can simply run rings round a chap of Dave's background, and she does.

Compounding this inherent disadvantage is Dave's prediliction for the tactical. If Dave had joined a socially acceptable regiment or battalion in the British Army after coming down from Oxford he would have learned that selection and maintenance of the aim is critical to success. Instead he became a PR spiv focussed on the next 24 hours. Britain now faces a situation where the long game is paramount and where a good strategic thinker with a clear goal would seize the initiative and keep it.

But Dave has no goal in Europe and shows no sign of being able to out-fox the other players at the personal level.

It follows that with an indecisive Prime Minister who is out-classed by his Continental rivals, the British position is dependent on mistakes being made by those same rivals.

This is an entirely unsatisfactory and very dangerous situation for the nation to be in.

bluedog"When Chamberlain went in to bat for Britain against Adolf Hitler he was completely out-classed"Maybe he wasn't.In 1938 Britain wasn't fully prepared for war. More time was needed.The radar stations needed to be built. Something which proved vital for Britain's defence.In the dark days of 1940 a British victory was far from certain.Chamberlain resigned the premiership on 10 May 1940, after the Allies were forced to retreat from Norway as he believed a government supported by all parties was essential, and the Labour and Liberal parties would not join a government headed by him. He remained very well regarded in Parliament, especially among Conservatives. Before ill health forced him to resign, he was an important member of Churchill's War Cabinet, heading it in the new premier's absence. Chamberlain died of cancer six months after leaving the premiership

Talking of the press. In the 1930s, Lord Rothermere urged increased defence spending while being the owner of the only major newspapers to advocate an alliance with Germany. The Rothermere papers for a time in 1934 championed the British Union of Fascists (B.U.F), and were again the only major papers that did so. Rothermere famously wrote a Daily Mail editorial entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler. On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain. However, this was tempered by an awareness of the military threat from the resurgent Germany, of which he warned J.C. Davidson.Secret British government papers released in 2005 show that Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and encouraged him to march into Romania. He went on to note that Hitler's work was "great and superhuman".Today the Daily Mail is headed by a Rothermere.

Maybe it's because you're a pile of ash Cranmer, but I'm constantly amazed by your sense of surprise that successive PM's keep managing to find excuses not to have a referendum ... because it's a "treaty" not a "constitution"; because "the treaty is already ratified"; because "this one doesn't really alter anything"; because "the time isn't right".

There will NEVER be a referendum whilst there is a lib/lab/con government. Full stop. Period.

The EU is not a democratic institution. What political leader would willingly relinquish such power & wealth voluntarily? Can anyone point me to an example of a dictatorship becoming a democracy by any other means than a revolution?

At this point, I suspect we're arguing about dinner protocol on the Titanic. One can't bail out of a plane when it's burning and in a tail spin; you have to get it stabalized first and then jump, otherwise you'll smash into the wing or your 'chute will catch fire on the flames. To quote a great American (when he was still technically British) we all hang together or we'll all hang separately.

he [Cameron] can only achieve his professed Euro-sceptic objective by threatening the Euro-beast with a referendum

In answer to James Kirkup, Cameron said he was sceptical about granting more power to the EU, about Brussels’ ability to spend money wisely and about the desirability of a superstate.

Even if Cameron triumphed over the Euro-beast in those areas, the British would still be in thrall to Brussels and still be denied the sine qua non of a free people: the right to govern themselves. Perpetuating dictatorship should result not in admission to the pantheon of Conservative greats but to the Tower.

yet for HM Government to attempt to use this crisis to renegotiate its ‘relationship’ with the EU will appear petty and awfully small-minded.

Indeed, but he might be able to use his position at least to prevent the UK being sidelined in a way that damages us - e.g. by attacking the City.

Personally, I think that if we must be swallowed up by some enormous super-state I would prefer to be the fifty-first state of the USA. At least that union works, and is democratic - quite apart from issues of shared history.

Forget Europe. It is a busted flush. If the Germans and the others don't want to bail out their southern chums, why should rest of the world do so by the IMF,EFSF etc? Lets just get out of this mess and start to sell our stuff to the other 120 plus nations on this earth. Europe is a dying continent. Let's not let England die also.

Your Grace,I agree with Albert @15;16. I have always felt I would rather be the 51st state of the USA than be part of a load of foreigners in Europe.At least they have a few aircraft carriers to defend us with. We could call in the IRA to blow up the Channel Tunnel.(we just tell them that it actually links England with Ireland).What is it with these politicians that they think we have to be tied up with this lot? It’s not Gods plan for us to be all matey with each other until the end times and I don’t think we are there yet.If only with could have people with integrity and an understanding of Gods purpose forming our Government today.Bluedog @11;34. You hit the nail right on the head. Give that dog a bone.

If Cameron ever wanted a referendum on Europe it is only in the sense that St. Augustine wanted to live a life of chastity when he prayed "Lord, make me chaste but not yet." I imagine that Gordon Brown probably said at some point that he was in favour of joining the Euro when the time was right, but his five tests meant that it was unlikely it would be right in the foreseeable future. That was one of the few good things Brown did. Similarly in Cameron's case the time will probably never be ripe for a referendum.

Your Grace is probably right in saying that it would be wrong to obstruct European co-operation right now when urgent action is needed to tackle the Euro-crisis. However that should not stop the British government taking back powers unilaterally.

If we simply ask Brussels for the return of some powers they will either say "get lost" or they will make some meaningless gesture to enable Cameron to say he has achieved his objectives, e.g. Brussels could promise not to introduce any new laws on the shape of bananas without British approval.

I think that parliament should pass a new Act of Supremacy (the original was passed by Henry VIII) saying that British law should always override EU law. Then after that we can do what we want.

If any new treaty requires Mr Cameron's signature and he goes ahead without first getting the approval of the UK electorate through a referendum then he will see a mass exodus of members from the Conservative party including I suspect some of his MPs.

From desperation comes honesty in the EU. Never thought we’d find honesty and EU in the same sentence. Let Germany and France unite to form their United States of Europe. Maybe some other European states will cede their independence and jump on board. Meanwhile, it’s time for the UK to pack it’s bags. Two EUs, a federated superstate, and the other’s are NOT going to run together. The EU as we know it is finished. It’s time for the end game, which by duplicity has been hidden from Joe Public for fifty years - political union.

So what about the other’s, notably the UK and Italy. Ironically, we’ll be left with what we thought we had signed up for in 1975 – a trading group. But best of all, a trading group with our independence intact. A thousand years of history continues.

What do we do at present. Plan ahead is the answer. Let’s put into place OUR way forward. There’s so much to work with now. We get our fishing grounds back. We don’t pay over £ 51 million every day. We can regain our borders. We can tell all our ‘guest’ immigrants to stop taking our peoples jobs and go home. We can make our own laws. In other words, we can put all that is wrong right. We can once again govern ourselves.

There may come a time when the UK would like to join the superstate. We’ll leave that for the generation after the next one to decide for themselves.

Cameron, if you are reading this, you may wish to use this as a template for your withdrawal speech in the Commons.

Hm, Merkel and Sarkozy have reached something of an impasse, at least in the short term. Merkel is demanding greater, (total?) fiscal union and 'Super National' powers over failing EU States, whilst Sarkozy insists that national parliaments remain involved.

Sharozy refuses, and will continue to refuse, to cede French sovereign, fiscal powers.

The compromise will indeed be, as we often hear, a two tier EU.

However, this means far more than a two-tier fiscal/market system - but a two-tier 'sovereignty' ie: to all intents and purposes, ruled direct from Brussels (Bundesbank?) and an almost certain return to the Deutsche Mark, possibly marketed as the 'Euro-mark'.

The question being, are those weak states prepared to be ruled; or will they bale-out, as fiscal pariahs? Either way, God Knows what will happen afterwards, as all bets will then be off.

Without Merkel's 'Super National' union, the Euro-Zone, and the EU itself, will collapse, and throw the world into economic chaos.

Whereas, with Merkel's 'Super National' union, democracy will cease to exist within those weak states; and yet again, God Knows what will follow then; certainly severe fiscal privation for all those within the PIIGS states, and probably many others too, ourselves included.

It's a game of 'Monopoly' with land-mines, rather than 'houses' and 'hotels' - half the players having little or no cash; the winners adjudged by the number of limbs remaining - if any!

Inspector, I had no idea you dug with your left foot! I am the husband of a Londonderry girl so see things from a different perspective. It's a shame we can't tell those great old jokes about the Irish any more. My apologies if I offended your sensibilties.I'm not sure if I have a day job to give up any more unlike yourself who must have so much to do being inspector of everything. How do you find the time to write here?

Mr Integrity. Think nothing of it old chap. Your joke made the Inspector smile , well done that man, do carry on by all means!

As for finding enough time to contribute, he doesn’t ! This place is going to rack and ruin don’t you know. Half expect social services to break the door down, resulting in an appearance on a channel 4 ‘intrusive documentary’ on losers. Still, the meddling keeps him alive – something to be said for that...

Lucifer through his servants the European elites, is seducing Europe, will dominate it and move onto merge regional alliances and establish Nimrod's cherished dream of a world government led by the Antichrist.

Here's the paradox, if this is biblical prophecy unfolding before us, can it be stopped? And if not, does such imagery actually help us arrive at political and economic solutions to the problems we face?

Dudie Dodo (I thought you were erased, deleted, extincted, all by a bunch of ignorant sailors). If it were the end times for us as well as the Dodo, could we affect it? Do we have to be rampant theological fatalists to think that we just have to stand back what it all unfold? God knows how each of is going to react to circumstances but he also has given us free will. A dichotomy? Not necessarily. Are these prophecies really true prophecies or are they a distraction from the true purpose of God. We are co-workers with God so therefore have an important role to play in the outworking’s of his plan. Therefore, in the foreknowledge of his divine plan as revealed in his scriptures, we must play our part in assisting in his plan as his agents here on earth.A wise man told me once. There are two things God will not do. First; he will not do what he has already done. Second; He will not do what he asked us to do!If you understand that, you are on your way to having light.

Dodo. The Inspector feels that peoples that can laugh at themselves are indeed the happiest...

Mr Integrity. The Inspector agrees that too much is made of the end times. Perhaps we have tens of thousands of years before it all comes crashing in. No doubt by then, man will have reached for the stars...

Precisely, Mr Albert @ 15.16, completely agree. Enter the Anglosphere, this communicant's preferred political, economic and social option. A recent agreement between the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand has given these very similar nations the right to provide consular services to each other's citizens.

Could this be the start of shared citizenship and other benefits?

One can imagine a great Oceanic Federation of the English-speaking Peoples. Ireland would be a natural member, too.

"We are co-workers with God so therefore have an important role to play in the outworking’s of his plan. Therefore, in the foreknowledge of his divine plan as revealed in his scriptures, we must play our part in assisting in his plan as his agents here on earth."

We know the beginning and the middle - because they've been and gone. The detail is available to us with hindsigh and we can discern prophecy after the events.

We anticipate the end because it is promised. However, the foreknowledge we have is not specific or detailed. Human foresight is notoriously poor. In my opinion, it is dangerous to base our responses on what we think God's plan might be.

Think of the two greatest crimes in human history. Then consider the wonderful outcome for mankind. History is in the Hand's of God and its outcome is assurred.

All we can do, is do what we believe to be consistent with the Christian path and leave the rest to the Almighty.

Dodo, What can one say? How many times have you been to the Blarney Stone?You said; ‘All we can do, is do what we believe to be consistent with the Christian path and leave the rest to the Almighty’.How do we know what to believe? It can surely only be by reference to the interpretation of the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit. For in them I believe is the answer for every circumstance we may find ourselves in. Not in detail but in general, Otherwise we will all go our own way believing that what WE believe is the infallible truth. Hence there have been so many heretics throughout the ages. (I will refrain from saying anything about the Roman Catholic Church).Yes, I dig with the right foot and proud of it. Inspector; Laughter is medicine for the Soul and as you say, if you can’t laugh at yourself you become a very sad individual.

Leaving the deeper theological matters to one side for the moment, so divisive, and sticking with daily living, much easier, there is a clear Christian path that has to be applied - a 'right' and a 'wrong', in simple terms.

I think most 'traditional' Christian can find common ground about this as the bible is clear. and yet, based on a "reference to the interpretation of the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit" others disagree. Basic moral issues divide churches and Christians - abortion, homosexuality, divorce.

Scripture is inerrant - man is not; he is limited. The bible is not a simple text and although studied for thousands of years contains mysteries yet to be revealed.

If the basics cannot be agreed, how so the great issues? Christians cannot agree on what is a 'church', on 'religion', on the nature of priestly authority, on baptism, on the economy of salvation, etc. Yet all claim "reference to the interpretation of the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit."

So imagine the problem with prophecy! There is only one Holy Spirit, yet so many different "interpretation(s) of the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit."

Inspector"We get our fishing grounds back"Iceland is not going to let British trawlers fish in waters near to it. Not that there is much cod left, as in many other fishing grounds it is becoming fished out.

bluedogAt the time Churchill became PM there were many people who had considerable doubts about him. He certainly didn't have the image he has today.One thing he did say about Europe in 1946 was- "We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living"

You presuppose there will be genuine fiscal union. There won't be. All there will be is a fudge which will implode at some not too distant point leaving us all with a worse mess now. Our only salvation is to leave the EU.

YG,We do not need another referendum we need new leadership.This is a slippery slope. It would, likely, lead to a referendum on something else and on and on. Our representative system of government would be at an end. MP's are not our delegates to sway with every wind of doctrine, they are charged to use their judgement in the interests of their constituents and country. Please YG, drop this agitation for a referendum. Rebellion is needed in the Conservative Party.

Your GraceA "'British' - perhaps in the Bythronic sense - 'people'" unitary and as one subsumed in the haute-Anglican wafer and trans-substantiated into decaying flesh and thinning blood of the Anglo-imperial, crusader project upon the cross crying "My Lord, my Lord why did you forsake me?": A touch your own vinegar in your own wound, for an historical change?

What would your namesake have done given the manifold, epochal events buffeting Albion's "green and pleasant" shores, and soon to gather hurricane-like levels of intensity to scour the haywain heartlands?

How does one police that prospect from the pulpit theologically (in reverse liberation theological terms), or manage it on the streets of your fading Jerusalem with your current crop of legionnairies?

Is an updated heretical insight and set of preachings in order? For surely, your congregation seems set to be smote unto ashes and scattered unto the four corners of the earth by the turbulence of the breath of Mammon and his foul emissions...

Shall there be succour of the heart and soul and flesh?

What say you, Your Grace? And may your God grant you it in the midst of this onset of multiple plagues and auges.

Your GraceA "'British' - perhaps in the Bythronic sense - 'people'" unitary and as one subsumed in the haute-Anglican wafer and trans-substantiated into decaying flesh and thinning blood of the Anglo-imperial, crusader project upon the cross crying "My Lord, my Lord why did you forsake me?": A touch your own vinegar in your own wound, for an historical change?

What would your namesake have done given the manifold, epochal events buffeting Albion's "green and pleasant" shores, and soon to gather hurricane-like levels of intensity to scour the haywain heartlands?

How does one police that prospect from the pulpit theologically (in reverse liberation theological terms), or manage it on the streets of your fading Jerusalem with your current crop of legionnairies?

Is an updated heretical insight and set of preachings in order? For surely, your congregation seems set to be smote unto ashes and scattered unto the four corners of the earth by the turbulence of the breath of Mammon and his foul emissions...

Shall there be succour of the heart and soul and flesh?

What say you, Your Grace? And may your God grant you it in the midst of this onset of multiple plagues and auges.

Dodo the DudeI think the men in white coats will be coming for you:"Scripture is inerrant "What is the value of Pi, then?... or the age of the Earth?... or the origin of humanity?... or where are the places that BSF keeps the waters?''' or the origin of the winds?

Mr Manfarang @ 01.49, don't recall that rather wistful quote from WSC, but thank you. On this occasion he may have been wrong. As His Grace has said, paraphrasing/quoting Enoch Powell, 'there is no European demos.'

And we see it today; Tte ancient emnities, mistrust and rivalry have all re-emerged. One had thought that the crisis would focus the minds of leaders and electorates alike, but no, the pattern of events is centrifugal.

If Britain is to be saved from extinction within the EU super state it will be because the national egos of France and Germany cannot be reconciled.

@ bluedog (20:20 on 6 December)—The Anglosphere appeals to me, too, but the demographics indicate that it is on its last legs. Not too far into the future, a majority of Americans will speak Spanish and a majority of Brits will speak Urdu.

Dod the dudeDID you claim scripture is "inerrant" or not?A simple Yes/No answer is sufficient.If yes - will you look through the telescope, to see the moons of Jupiter, or not?

ON THE MAIN SUBJECTit is getting interesting as these three links show:1: Boris saying "referendum Inevitable"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-160703152: NI secretary saying the same thinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8940353/Owen-Paterson-tells-David-Cameron-EU-referendum-is-inevitable.html3: Torygraph claiming Camoron is screwedhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100122197/david-camerons-man-of-steel-is-an-cast-iron-hostage-to-fortune/

And I tend to agree.As someone who has changed sides on "Europe" - because this is NOT the EU I voted for, I tend to agree with the links ....

Johnny: yes, a most terible prospect, but do not despair, it really won't happen; at least, not here. Late in the day there will be a great reckoning.

Unfortunately, for the likes of us who would have had it differently from the onset, it will be be a bloody affair. Stupidity, when it is rewarded, is rewarded grimly. Perhaps, once Britain is truly beggared, 'they' will all depart. A cleansing poverty perhaps; who knows?

These days, second-guessing our future appears more difficult than winning the lottery...but whatever, we will prevail.

''As someone who has changed sides on 'Europe' - because this is NOT the EU I voted for...''

Just goes to show the limitation of your much, self-vaunted, 'scientific mind' - 'good ideas' need some sound empiracle evidence. Where exactly, within the history of the British Isles, did you discover yours; the 'Big Science Fairy' book of neat ideas?

Better late than never, as I've said before; but it's all a bit of a shame, what. 'Wishful thinking' when contrary to the 'human condition' is nothing more than closing your eyes, and crossing your fingers.

The press reports that: "Neither Nicolas Sarkozy nor Angela Merkel will leave the negotiating table of this summit until there is a powerful deal". It promises to be a very long day. They achieved nothing at the last summit and are about to achieve it all over again.

Markets aren't going to tread water for months waiting for treaty changes. They need an immediate economic safety valve to disperse funding pressures in the european banking system. When the bazooka is wheeled out and exposed as a peashooter with no peas, Failure Friday is likely to be followed by Meltdown Monday.

'Yes scripture is inerrant, as the inspired Word of God. It is not a manual dictated by God but requires interpretation.' (Preferably by someone in the Catholic faith otherwise you might get the RIGHT idea?)

Cameron has had his chance to confront the Euro Beast.A referendum would have given him the backing to do so.But Cameron intends to woo the Euro beast hoping a bit of 'sweet talking 'will pacify the Beast.I think someone should tell Dave that the Beast intends to consume him!.

Mr JR @ 13.56, a pessimist would agree with you, but there may be a hope. It requires a certain will to prevent the outcome that you forecast. Be that as it may, in the case of the US, a Hispanic majority is infinitely preferable to an Islamic majority.

As this communicant sees it, the English speaking peoples are heir to extraordinary estate, no other ethnic group enjoys such properity and such physical possesion, in the form of land. The thing to do in the face of the rise of Asia, and China in particular, is to consolidate.

For the UK, getting out of the EU disaster is an important first step.

" Dodo'Yes scripture is inerrant, as the inspired Word of God. It is not a manual dictated by God but requires interpretation.' (Preferably by someone in the Catholic faith otherwise you might get the RIGHT idea?)"

This from a man who can't bring himself to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazereth, born of Mary, was the Second Person of the Trinity! A man who can't acknowledge that the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, died for him!

Oswin:I will follow EVIDENCE.Atr the time voting "for" Euope, on the evidence available at that time - was the right thing to do.What has cahnges since then?"Europe" has changed - the EU Commossion and bureaucracy has taken over.This is not what I voted for.If the FACTS change - and they have - then my opinions - based on those facts - will also change.this is called REALISM.

Regarding the value of Pi, I was trying to defend you from Tingey's criticisms and posted another response yesterday but it doesn't seem to have appeared in the blog.

Tingey regarded the moons of Jupiter and the value of Pi as arguments against scripture. In the former case he was obviously thinking of Galileo whose critics in the Roman Catholic church refused to accept evidence Galileo gained from his observations with his newly invented telescope. Tingey was right to imply that the Roman Catholic church was wrong and Galileo was right. However that is not an argument against scripture because nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Earth is the centre of the solar system.

The reason why Tingey asked about the value of Pi was that some atheists and agnostics think that the Bible gives an incorrect value for that constant. More specifically, they claim that 1 Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26 imply that the value is 3. There is more about this, and a convincing answer, in the web page below.

The "Jewish" or "Bible" Value of "pi"http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

However, even if you accept the atheist argument about the value of Pi in its entirety that would still not be an argument against the inspiration of scripture because the value of Pi cannot be written down exactly. That is why I challenged Tingey to let us know what the true value is if he thinks the Bible is wrong.

The value of Pi will depend on what you need it for. An answer that would suffice for a craftsman in Biblical times, or a craftsman today, would not suffice for an engineer making precision instruments in a hi-tech industry. However the value used by the engineer would not be the true value either, and therefore Tingey's arguments against scripture are invalid.

Thanks for the clarification. Seems a thin argument of Tingey to level against the Bible! It doesn't claim to be a mathmatical treatise or contain precise scientific knowledge. It was written by men under inspiration from the Holy Spirit - not dictated to them!

Dodo the dude ...AHHomosion or Houmousion? (I think they were spelt) an utterly futile debate, finally resolved against the so-called Arian heresy, I think - long time since I read Gibbon ....

At least someone has spotted the point I was trying to make about descriptions in the bible, and onserved facts. Good, that's a start.

Now then, what about the internal contradictions and mutual incompatibiites in the bible - they are there, you know - how do you account for those, if it's inerrant?And, of course, the real biggie.Evolution: Directly contrary to scripture - and scripture is flat wrong.

Were you once a Christian who was taught to believe in the literal accuracy of every word the Bible? That everything written is plain and clear? This is why people like len run into so much difficultly.

I suspect he is searching websites for answers. His evasiveness thus far is strange.

It's interesting to note that a while ago he questioned whether St Paul was 'inspired' by Lucifer. He also suggested that Jesus' actual words as recorded in the Gospels carry more weight than other parts.

Of course he's not obliged toanswer but I'll draw my own conclusions if he fails to do so.

Dodo: "Of course he's not obliged toanswer but I'll draw my own conclusions if he fails to do so."

He's obliged to engage one-to-one on demand and obliged to answer all questions for as long as it takes otherwise he will be followed around the threads. There's something a little familiar about this approach but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Did I say that? You really must let go of your old prejudices against Rome!

Besides, they're not my questions but ones I would think anyone following Christ has to consider. This is especially so if one wants to 'correct' and 'teach' others as len has sought to do, claiming all Catholic doctrine is a false - from the times of the early church.

Dodo the dude:NoBUTI was brought-up-as-christian preached at by a very fundamentalist vicar/Canon ....I always realised that some parts of the bible were, erm, rhetorical - which is why "ineerancy" always striles me as absurd.Never mind now!

I'll tell you a secret. I spent the best part of my school days rebelling against simplistic presentations of Genesis and got into a lot of bother over it too.

My question, never answered, was "if Adam and Eve had other children then did it mean the human race started with incestuous relationships"? Shock horror from the mouth of an 11 year old child!

As I've posted elsewhere the Catholic Church doesn't understand 'inerrancy' in the same way as some more 'fundamentalist' Christians. Like you, I find this doctrine when it is understood as meaning literal truth and especially when accompanied by it's sister doctrine 'sola scriptura', to be irrational.

So go on provoking 'believers' with the taunts of 'Big Sky Fairy' and 'Goat Herder Myths'. I happen to agree with you the existance of God cannot be proven and the scientific method is valid for the material world and much in the bible is not supported by science.

But so what? Don't base your rejection of the bible on this or close the door on the possibility of God. Have a read of 'Providentissimus Deus' from 1893 and subsequent encyclicals dealing with this.

Dodo the dudeThank you for a thinking response.However, you have, I think got it the wrong way around.If BSF exists, then he/she/it/they MUST manifest itself somehow in THIS universe - and that manifestation and communication MUST be detectable.De nada.

The "believers" are the ones making the claim - that BSF exists.Let them produce evidence.

If BSF exists, then he/she/it/they MUST manifest itself somehow in THIS universe - and that manifestation and communication MUST be detectable.

I think we've been through why the language of BSF shows nothing except that you do not know what you are talking about. But let us assume that you were talking about God, why MUST such a being manifest itself if it exists?

"William, "neutral" or just hadn't actually bothered to consider the differences between the denomonations and their implications?"

I suspect that the implications of the differences in denominations are that Jesus weeps. What I find difficult to understand is that you are so keen to protect your particular denomination that you are prepared to make completely contradictory statements, sometimes in the same thread, and will ask the same set of questions over and over of the same person in the manner of a grand inquisitor. It is not your denomination that will save you. It is Christ. Have you been goaded? Well suck it up old chap!

Oooh, Dodo, that's quite alright as I am also wary of your goodself!Being able to change from a bird to a fish like that, means you are either a changeling from the Dominion or a time lord whose regenerations have gone a bit wrong!

PS- I simply cannot be bothered to change my google profile, so that old photo has to stay for the time being. Or I could become a fish....

That's at the heart of the division of Christianity today. Just consider the main organised churches and the harm being done by the disorganised and random sects followed by some on here that have no doctrinal substance.

Frankly, what 'goads' me is lies about Roman Catholicism. Not the nonsense about the 'Whore of Babylon' or the accusation it's history is pagan-satanic. That's all laughable.

My blood rises when Our Blessed Lady is openly insulted, when the Divine and human nature of Jesus Christ is questioned and when the mission to spread and lead His Church, clearly passsed to Peter and the Apostles, is deliberately undermined by misrepresentations of scripture.

If BSF exists, then he/she/it/they MUST manifest itself somehow in THIS universe - and that manifestation and communication MUST be detectable.

is false?

The God of classical theism claims that it is God that makes the universe exist. How can that make God irrelevant?

and you claim that it is detectable

Who's claiming that God is detectable? What do you think God is, a kind of radiation? Or is this another occasion when you claim everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, even as you totally misuse your own words and show you don't understand them?

I don't - that is your assumption.However, to be able to interact AT ALL with humans (or any other intelligent species for that matter) then BSF must have some "physical" manifestation in this universe, so that messages can be transmitted.That is an absolute minimum requirement.In other words, SOME part of the BSF must exist inside our visible constraints, somewhere.That is what you should be looking fo, if you want to prove me wrong.

GT: "In other words, SOME part of the BSF must exist inside our visible constraints, somewhere."

The BSF being defined as more than a creator or creating process, I guess. The comeback might be that the BSF communicates through the mind, which is private, subjective stuff and in some sense beyond the reach of science which works with public stuff. If so then it doesn't seem to communicate very precisely or with consistent information across minds.

Thoughts in the BRAIN (there is no separate mind - proven, I'm afraid.)

Where is that proven? In principle it cannot be proven. "Thoughts are in the brain", so if we open it up we will find a load of thought?

Are physical, detectable processes.

Therefore, your thought that thoughts are in the brain, is nothing more than a physical process. In which case there is no reason why those thoughts and judgements should be correct. It's just a set of physical events. There's no reason why those physical events should correspond to reality. So your position is self-defeating. The fact that physical events clearly go on in the brain does not reduce thoughts to the brain events.

If you "open it up" it will, presumably be dead, so there won't be ANY processes (except decay) going on.

Really? What about neurosurgery?

If you still believe in mind/brain dualism, you are at least 50 years oput of date....

I am not sure if I could characterise my position on this as mind/brain dualism. But I think you would have a job trying to show that the only position philosophers have taken on this question is material reductionism. How would you characterise your own position? Some kind of epiphenomenalism or eliminativism perhaps. Or is it again, that, despite the fact that you haven't given this much thought (and who would want to be confident on what is known in philosophy as "the hard question?), you find it easier to ridicule me than to engage with me?

Now you said it proven. I asked you where? You haven't answered, but by calling me a twerp have simply raised the stakes for yourself. Do I get an answer to my questions or not?

If I got a pound for every time a cock-sure, patronising secularist had avoided answering the fairly obvious questions that I raise against them on this blog, I would be a happy man.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)